Very interesting. Edwards seems to have it locked up, but this would make the race a lot more fun to watch.

The VP is usually such a low-influence position that it doesn't really matter who is in the slot - it's typically just used to win an election. Of course, Cheney is a lot more active.

However, yeah, I'd vote for Hillary. Not necessarily saying I will if she runs - it depends on how things are in 2008/2012. But this year, I would vote for virtually anyone who wasn't Bush. And I certainly would be interested in how Hillary redefines the role of VP, if at all.

I'm willing to go way out on a limb here and say this has got about a snowball's chance in hell. The very last thing Kerry is going to want is a Clinton on his ticket. This would appeal to how many swing voters -- maybe five? Six? And a Democratic ticket representing two, adjoining northeastern states. Now, that's a winner.

Honestly, I think this Kerry-Clinton thing is nothing more than a GOP wet dream, which is why you're reading it in the Drudge report.

Actually, Edwards would probably make a stronger candidate in the election than Kerry... but that's not the way it turned out in the primaries.

Choosing Hillary is a huge risk... it would could be a colossal blunder if he loses, or it would be seen as genius if he wins. But would the pres want to be overshadowed by the vice-pres like that? If he won, everyone would credit her... and all of the media focus would be on her and her role as vp. It would define his presidency.

Doubtful, there was an article in the Mercury news the other day about her speaking at a UC somewhere in southern California, this was one of the things she was asked about and she said she wasn't going to.

Doubtful, there was an article in the Mercury news the other day about her speaking at a UC somewhere in southern California, this was one of the things she was asked about and she said she wasn't going to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but everyone knows the Clintons are dirty,stinking, filthyliars!!!!

No sir, you can't trust them any farther than you could throw them. Hillary will be Queen if she has her way.

No matter how you feel about things, the economy has recovered, the jobs have recovered, the Iraq situation may turn around before November. ..

Click to expand...

lol. The economy has *not* recovered. It has a long way to go before it can even be considered recovering.

Bush has lied, has been showed to be a liar. He can never, ever recover from that!!! The Iraq situation will turn around ?!?!?! Are you proposing 13,000 people are going to be brought back to life???!!!

WASHINGTON - Drug makers raised prescription prices by nearly triple the rate of inflation in the first three months of this year  just before Medicare began its pharmacy discount card program  negating much of the savings the government promised to seniors, according to an AARP survey released Wednesday.

economic indicators are indeed up, from what i've seen. today's raising of the overnight rate is such an indicator.

this leads me to two questions:
1. what of bush's policies have helped the recovery, and which have hindered it?
2. what is the lag between economic swings and voter reaction?

Click to expand...

They can be deceptive. Gas prices are up and housing prices are up, at least in CA. If the stats don't control for the average person versus the person who was rich already they don't mean much. And going is up is easy. But it won't undo the damage he has done for the past 4 years that has created a record number of personal bankruptcies.

They can be deceptive. Gas prices are up and housing prices are up, at least in CA. If the stats don't control for the average person versus the person who was rich already they don't mean much. And going is up is easy. But it won't undo the damage he has done for the past 4 years that has created a record number of personal bankruptcies.

Click to expand...

the relevancy of any single economic indicator is pretty subjective. relying on a single one, imo, gives a skewed picture. though unemployment is still at a net loss under bush, the employment rolls have been growing since late last year, iirc. many other indicators are up.

otoh, there's still a net loss of jobs, consumer credit is very high, the fed budget and trade deficts are still huge, etc. but imo the turnaround has come and employment will continue to rise, at least for a while. (note i'm not commenting on the kinds of jobs people are getting)

the relevancy of any single economic indicator is pretty subjective. relying on a single one, imo, gives a skewed picture. though unemployment is still at a net loss under bush, the employment rolls have been growing since late last year, iirc. many other indicators are up.

otoh, there's still a net loss of jobs, consumer credit is very high, the fed budget and trade deficts are still huge, etc. but imo the turnaround has come and employment will continue to rise, at least for a while. (note i'm not commenting on the kinds of jobs people are getting)

economic indicators are indeed up, from what i've seen. today's raising of the overnight rate is such an indicator.

this leads me to two questions:
1. what of bush's policies have helped the recovery, and which have hindered it?
2. what is the lag between economic swings and voter reaction?

Click to expand...

Well, my highly-scientific process of deducing this from memory comes up with this:

To answer question 1), I do not think any of Bush's policies helped the recovery, although his tax-cuts may have helped temporarily, although most of the saving went to high-income earners, and trickle-down economics has been mostly discredited...even so, I feel the lack of the Federal Government to come to the States' aid, resulting in hikes in taxes by the states, or by cuts in services, probably had the result of people having to spend more money on what were either (a) previously subsidized services or (b) community priorities (like schools), or (c) on increased local taxes.

Also, the WOT may have helped the economy with the war-machine, or fear-spending (like alarm systems, guns and duct-tape)...but this is only a guess, I admit (and a cynical one)...

Recessions (and depressions) seem to operate on a cycle independent of Politics, although Politics can speed up or slow down the gap between them. In general, there have been recession every 9-13 years for most of this Century...

2. As far as the lag-time, I cannot say, I was too young during the last recession, although it's effects may have caused Bush SR re-election, although perhaps it was the tax-raising...if it was related to that recession, than I would answer...a couple of years, or to when things are good enough around the water-cooler/on the street...

2. As far as the lag-time, I cannot say, I was too young during the last recession, although it's effects may have caused Bush SR re-election, although perhaps it was the tax-raising...if it was related to that recession, than I would answer...a couple of years, or to when things are good enough around the water-cooler/on the street...

Click to expand...

i was watching a PBS show a few weeks ago, i think it was Chicago Tonight, and they discussed the lag being 3 or 4 months. that is, good economic news from, say, august on wouldn't benefit bush at the polls.

and what good will come of any positive economic news? as discussed in this thread, some GOP congressmen want to cut taxes again...

Interesting point Zim, but I do tend to base my opinions on empirical data, and I think other people do too...to see statistics that 300,000 jobs have been added, or unemployment is down 1.6%, means relatively little to those unemployed or underemployed...

...relatedly, what comes out of an economic recovery? well as the song goes:
"<booty shakin beats> You gotta have a J-O-B, if ya wanna be with me...<booty shakin beats>"

So basically jobs, more money and more action...it's the American way...

Doubtful, there was an article in the Mercury news the other day about her speaking at a UC somewhere in southern California, this was one of the things she was asked about and she said she wasn't going to.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.